For a long time, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has had an unabashed attraction to Muslims with controversial ties. Their allure is so strong she seems unable to control it, at times. For example, in 1999, Hillary – who pretends to be a supporter of Israel during election cycles – was on the West Bank, standing next to the charm-exuding Suha Arafat, who had just finished a speech accusing Israel of poisoning Palestinians, when Clinton apparently lost control of her emotions and planted a wet kiss on the cheek of the surprised Suha.
Though she knew then that she would run for political office, Clinton could not restrain herself from kissing the wife of Yasser Arafat, the arch-terrorist and murderer. Recall that, during Bill Clinton’s term, Arafat, who shouldn’t have even been allowed entrance to our country was the most frequent visitor to the White House.
What Clinton really did in Libya and Egypt
The report of the Citizens Commission on Benghazi, told of America’s apparent switching of sides in the war on terror, on pages 3 and 4. Members of the CCB are experts on the Middle East and military affairs, people like Clare Lopez, Steve Emerson, Col. Allen West. The takeaway points are:
“[On March 18, 2011], Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced U.S. government support for the Brotherhood-led Libyan Transitional National Council in its revolt against Qaddafi.”
The rebel militias in Libya were Muslim “Brotherhood-led” and “al-Qa’eda-dominated”:
“The U.S. was fully aware of and facilitating the delivery of weapons to the al-Qa’eda-dominated rebel militias throughout the 2011 rebellion.”
“The rebels made no secret of their al-Qa’eda affiliation, openly flying and speaking in front of the black flag of Islamic jihad,… And yet, the White House and senior Congressional members deliberately and knowingly pursued a policy that provided material support to terrorist organizations in order to topple a ruler who had been working closely with the West actively to suppress al-Qa’eda.”
Since we had been attacked by al-Qa’eda on 9/11, some might call that treason.
This has recently been corroborated by Andrew McCarthy, another expert on the Global Jihad Movement, and prosecutor of the Blind Sheik:
“Before becoming ambassador, Stevens was the Obama administration’s official liaison to Qaddafi’s Islamist opposition in Libya, including its al-Qaeda-linked groups.”
“Secretary Clinton led the policy shift in which our government changed sides in Libya – shifting support to the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies, just as Mrs. Clinton had urged shifting U.S. support to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. In Libya, this included arming ‘rebels,’ who naturally included a heavy concentration of jihadists.”
Notice the new information revealing that Clinton actually pushed Obama to switch sides to Islamists and terrorists: “Secretary Clinton led the policy shift…” and: “Mrs. Clinton had urged shifting U.S. support to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.” [Italics mine.]
Clinton aide directly connected with Muslim Brotherhood
In 2012, five U.S. Representatives wrote letters to inspectors general questioning the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood on our government. Huma Abedin. a longtime close confidant of HRC was mentioned because of her family connections to the MB, bringing a storm of smears upon the accusers, from the Left and pseudo-conservatives. However, Andrew McCarthy reported Abedin had direct connections of her own:
It turns out…that Abedin herself is directly connected to Abdullah Omar Naseef, a major Muslim Brotherhood figure involved in the financing of al-Qaeda.
Abedin worked for a number of years  at the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs as assistant editor of its journal. The IMMA was founded by Naseef, who remained active in it for decades, overlapping for several years with Abedin.
Naseef was also secretary general of the Muslim World League in Saudi Arabia, perhaps the most significant Muslim Brotherhood organization in the world. In that connection, he founded the Rabita Trust, which is formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization under American law due to its support of al-Qa’eda.
Hillary spearheaded move to restrict criticism of Islam
While toppling Middle East dictators who had been suppressing the Islamists, Hillary Clinton found time to work on silencing condemnation of Islam. In a 2013 Gatestone Institute article, Clare Lopez wrote:
“Since 2011, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had been working closely with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation [OIC] through the “Istanbul Process” to implement UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, one of the key vehicles aimed at legislating restrictions on Americans’– and everyone’s, worldwide — right to free speech.”
It had been adopted in April 2011.
The OIC, a group of 56 Islamic states, had demanded for years to silence “defamation” of Islam. In the Istanbul Process, a series of high-level meetings, Clinton worked with OIC to achieve that aim, so all nations might bend the knee to the sensitivities of Islam.
In Europe, one can be fined or jailed for criticizing Islam’s less attractive features; not so in America, under our precious First Amendment.
But Brandenburg v. Ohio (1968) had set the standard for an exception to First Amendment protection of speech:
“(1) Speech can be prohibited if it is ‘directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action.’”
Similar wording in 16/18 could get around the First Amendment, under the OIC’s twisted “Test of Consequences,” aptly described by Lopez in American Thinker. As the warped theory goes, if someone like Pamela Geller holds a Mohammed cartoon contest, it will incite violence, and if two terrorists shoot up the contest, she would be responsible for it. That will provide an exception to the First Amendment. All that is needed is a left-leaning SCOTUS appointment, by Hillary Clinton.
Clinton’s Real views on Israel and Jews
Christopher Anderson, in his book, American Evita, provided two vignettes that tell us just what kind of person Hillary Clinton is:
At a time when elements of the American Left embraced the Palestinian cause and condemned Israel, Hillary was telling friends that she was “sympathetic” to the terrorist organization and admired its flamboyant leader, Yasser Arafat. When Arafat made his famous appearance before the UN General Assembly in November 1974 wearing his revolutionary uniform and his holster on his hip, Bill “was outraged like everybody else,” said a Yale Law School classmate. But not Hillary, who tried to convince Bill that Arafat was a “freedom fighter” trying to free his people from their Israeli “oppressors.”
The second vignette demonstrates that Hillary Clinton not only agrees with the Palestinians; she’s anti-Semitic as well:
It was during [a] trip to his home state that Bill took Hillary to meet a politically well-connected friend. When they drove up to the house, Bill and Hillary noticed that a menorah – the seven branched Hebrew candelabrum (not to be confused with the more common and subtler mezuzah) – had been affixed to the front door.
“My daddy was half Jewish,” explained Bill’s friend. “One day when he came to visit, my daddy placed the menorah on my door because he wanted me to be proud that we were part Jewish. And I wasn’t about to say no to my daddy.”
To his astonishment, as soon as Hillary saw the menorah, she refused to get out of the car. “Bill walked up to me and said that she was hot and tired, but later he explained the real reason.” According to the friend and another eyewitness, Bill said, “I’m sorry, but Hillary’s really tight with the people in the PLO in New York. They’re friends of hers, and she just doesn’t feel right about the menorah.” —Source: American Thinker.
These connections directly contradict Hillary Clinton’s pose as the qualified national security candidate and reveal she is beholden to groups inimical to America.